1.Beijing UniStrong v. Microsoft (appellate case of dispute over computer software copyright infringement)

[Judgment Abstract]

There are two ways to prove that the use of the software by the publisher or producer of the software copies is lawful. The first way is to prove that the software is published or produced with the lawful authorization, and the other way is to prove that the software copies are from legal sources. The genuine label is the common proof of the legal source of copies and its use is a convention in the software industry. It is usually provided by the software copyright owner to prove that the software is copied with the authorization or permission from the software copyright owner. In addition to the genuine label, such numerical passwords as identification codes and activation codes are the proof to the effect that the software copyright owner controls the use of software by the technical means and thus the software is copied with lawful authorization or permission.

2.Hunantv.com Interactive Entertainment Media Co., Ltd. v. Tsinghua Tongfang Co., Ltd. (appellate case of dispute over copyright)

[Judgment Abstract]

In judicial practice, the server standards should be used to determine the act of information network dissemination, which refers to an act of initially placing the work in the server. Therefore, the judgment on whether the act of providing a work by the video software belongs to information network dissemination lies in whether the work is stored in the server where the video software runs. On the premise that other constituent elements of an infringement upon the information network dissemination right are satisfied, if the work provided by the video software is indeed stored in the server where the software runs, the infringement is undoubtedly constituted; but if the video software only provides a link to the work and does not substantially replace the work on the linked website, the information network dissemination right is not infringed upon.

     3.Games Paradise Electronic Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Sanya Hongyuan Internet Bar (appellate case of dispute over copyright infringement)

[Judgment Abstract]

Article 49 of the Copyright Law states that an infringing party shall, when having infringed upon copyright or rights related to copyright, make compensation on the basis of the rights holder’s actual losses; and where it is difficult to calculate the actual losses, compensation may be made on the basis of the infringing party’s illegal gains. In addition, the amount of compensation is to include the reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringing acts. Where the rights holder’s actual losses or the infringing party’s illegal gains cannot be determined, the people's court shall, based on the circumstances regarding the infringing acts, make judgment for compensation of 500,000 yuan or less. In a dispute over an internet bar’s infringement of copyright in game software, if the rights holder is unable to present evidence to prove its actual losses caused by the internet bar’s infringement or the benefits obtained by the internet bar from infringement, the people’s court shall, on the basis of such factors as the game software’s release date, price, the infringing party’s subjective fault, the method of infringement, the internet bar’s business scale and fee standards, and the reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringing acts, comprehensively determine the infringing party’s amount of compensation.

From：www.chinalawinfo.com